Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Alan Dershowitz Takes Nearly 200 Pages To Make Case For “Vaccine” Mandates – Constitution Destroys It In A Few Words

Written by:

Published on: January 9, 2022

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – Amendment Nine, Constitution for the united States of America.

Friends, this is one amendment recognizing, guaranteeing, and protecting the God-given unalienable rights of the people not enumerated in the first ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to the Constitution for the united States of America. Failure to understand this will inevitably lead to a great misunderstanding of powers authorized to government, including State and local entities. If you listen to Alan Dershowitz, described as some type of “legal expert”, he states that only Congress can mandate “vaccines”, not the president. But, can they?

This has been discussed ad nauseum. But, lies are so often repeated the truth has to be continually spoken and written to counteract the heinous lies. Listen to what Dershowitz said on Saturday’s America Right Now at NewsMax TV. The segment begins at about the 27:56 mark. The story was also carried by NewsMax.

“Only Congress can make vaccine mandates, not the president,” Dershowitz told Saturday’s “America Right Now.” “After all, the Constitution says, quote, ‘all legislative powers shall be vested in Congress,’ and then it says ‘they can make all laws that may be necessary.’

“The Constitution does not give the president the power to make laws and this mandate either makes law or it interprets the OSHA law very, very broadly.”

Is this true? One only has to read the Constitution to know it is partially true. Dershowitz conveniently omits an important qualifier on the power of Congress’ legislative powers.

Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution for the united States of America states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the united States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So here, we can see that neither the executive branch nor the judicial branch are authorized by the people to enact law. Dershowitz is correct there. However, Dershowitz claims Congress can make “all laws that may be necessary.” Is that correct? According to the Constitution, no, it is not.

Article I, Section 8, last paragraph of the Constitution for the united States of America states, Congress has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the united States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” [Emphasis mine.]

So, Congress does not possess “unlimited” power to enact legislation, as Dershowitz claims. It only possesses the authority to enact legislation under the powers the people authorized to it, which are listed in Article I. This handy chart by Publius Huldah explains it simply. Where is it in the Constitution that Congress can enact a law pertaining to “mandating” a medical treatment or procedure, which is what any injection is considered, or enacting laws pertaining to health care? Please quote Article and Section.

Some may say, “But, Suzanne, he’s a legal expert and you aren’t. How can you say he’s wrong?”

It’s very simple – always refer back to the Constitution, not what someone else says, which is why references and sources are always provided so readers can verify what is being conveyed in the article.

The NewsMax.com report continues:

Dershowitz’s book “The Case for Vaccine Mandates” gave a blueprint on how to constitutionally impose the laws the Biden administration has moved to enact through its Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandate on businesses, which is now before the Supreme Court.

“I predicted in my book that the mandate would be upheld if it were enacted by Congress properly, with exceptions, but it might very well not be upheld if it was simply issued by the
president,” Dershowitz told host Tom Basile. “The executive authority, the president, has the right to enforce the law, not make the law.”

Dershowitz claims his new book provides a blueprint on how to constitutionally impose laws surrounding “vaccine” mandates. Hogwash! No one has to read his book to know any law that is made contrary to the Constitution is null and void, should be nullified by the States, and ignored by the people. As a reminder, no branch of government has “rights” – rights come from God. Branches of government have authority to act on the powers granted to those entities by the people within the confines of the Constitution.

Dershowitz also stated, “The Constitution anticipated there would be errors and they said, if there are going to be errors, Congress has to evaluate the conflicting data. Congress, the voice of the people, votes as to which side prevails in a dispute, but the Constitution doesn’t give the president the power to make that decision.”

The Constitution did not anticipate there would be errors, the founders did. One such error was the continuation of slavery, which Amendments 13 and 14 addressed after the War to Enslave the States. Does Congress evaluate “conflicting data” and then vote to determine which side prevails in a dispute? It only occurs when the issue at hand falls under the authorized power of Congress and the limits the Constitution places on those powers. Remember, the Constitution limits the branches of government, not the people.

Newsmax.com continues with Dershowitz’s statements.

While executive actions can be justified under emergency orders, Dershowitz argues the immediacy of the COVID-19 pandemic should no longer apply.

“In terms of emergencies, some of the worst decisions in our history were made based on the claim of emergency,” he said.

“We’ve had COVID now for two years. Congress has had an opportunity to act on emergencies constitutionally, or when there is no opportunity for Congress to act,” he continued.

“So the emergency argument goes much too far and has been used much too often to justify executive actions that should rightfully be made by Congress.”

Where does the Constitution authorize the executive branch to declare “emergencies” then enact “executive actions” under such an emergency? There is no authority for that. If you disagree, please provide Article, Section, and clause. And, do not try and use Article II, Section 3 for the justification of declarations of emergency and “executive orders” during such declarations. It isn’t there.

Article II, Section 3 states:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. [Emphasis mine]

The executive can “recommend” measures he judges necessary and expedient to Congress. Congress, then, has authority to weigh those measures according to the authority it possesses under the Constitution as to whether these “recommendations” fall under the purview of the Constitution. If not, Congress is required to reject them. If so, Congress has authority to enact legislation on those recommendations.

Executive orders are used to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” If Congress enacts an unconstitutional law, the executive branch has the authority to issue an “order” to the constitutional government agencies to ignore that law – a “do not enforce” action. This would be after a veto override. The executive has the power to veto passed legislation. If Congress enacts a constitutional law, the executive issues an “order” to enforce the law should constitutional government agencies ignore the law or fail to enforce it.

This is part of the system of checks and balances.

Now, where is it “constitutional” for Congress to act on “emergencies” and what constitutes an “emergency”?

Article I, Section 8, clause 15, states, Congress has the authority “to provide for calling for the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; ….” Congress also possesses the authority to declare war. (Article I, Section 8, clause 11)

There is no authority of any branch of government to “declare emergencies” for any other reasons.

Dershowitz claims emergencies are for when there is no opportunity for Congress to act. Well, if there is no authority for Congress to act on such, Congress cannot act on such because it was not given authority to do so. Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can declare an emergency to provide it an opportunity to act? It doesn’t. And, the only “emergencies” defined where Congress can act are listed in Article I, Section 8.

This brings us back to the Ninth Amendment.

The right inherent (God-given) to choose to receive or not any “medical” treatment or procedure is not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights; however, the Ninth Amendment recognizes, guarantees and protects that right, stating it is retained by the people. Remember, a “vaccine”, immunization, “inoculation”, or injection is an invasive medical treatment or procedure that violates your bodily integrity. The right to bodily integrity, in its entirety, is addressed here in the Ninth Amendment, and specifically regarding illegal search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment also guards against medical tyranny, as we are seeing today with attempts to implement injection mandates, which are not law, but administrative, pretended law.

The Ninth Amendment recognizes, guarantees, and protects your God-given right to breathe unimpeded by a face muzzle as well.

Medical ethics require that health care professionals recognize, respect, honor, and uphold the rights to bodily integrity. Moreover, medical ethics prohibits health care professionals from using human beings for experimentation, as does the law and Nuremberg code. The medical profession can “recommend” certain measures and treatments and is required to provide the individual with ALL information known in order for that individual to make a decision on medical treatments/procedures. It does NOT possess the authority to use force, coercion, guilt, or denial of other treatments/procedures to gain compliance with a “recommendation”.

Based upon the articles of the Constitution and the wording of the Ninth Amendment, governments do not possess the authority regarding the same. And, there is no where that indicates any “corporation” or employer can violate your rights nor can an employer, as a condition of employment, make policy or mandate you to relinquish those rights.

While Dershowitz may be some type of “legal” expert and this writer is not, Dershowitz comes forth with an agenda – arguing for law made by Congress to violate bodily integrity with injections based upon an unconstitutional authority to act in emergencies regarding disease and illness. When reading any document, article, or book, it is not the reader’s interpretation of what the author is trying to convey that is accurate. It is the author’s intent and meaning that takes precedent. And, when it comes to the Constitution for the united States of America, the founders laid out that intent and meaning in the Federalist Papers and their subsequent writings on the subject.

It took Dershowitz 192 pages to “lay out” a framework for “vaccine” mandates. The Constitution destroys his work with just a few words. While some may claim him “one of America’s most respected legal scholars”, he falls far short to actually applying the Constitution to these matters.

It’s best the people learn these simple constructs and apply them. Listening to individuals supporting “vaccine” mandates, such as Alan Dershowitz, will lead you along the broad path to destruction. It could even mean forfeiture of your life.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Newsletter SignupStay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Stay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!